This 35-word description can be a powerful tool in helping people understand the science behind global warming and climate change, said GSE Professor Michael Ranney, a cognitive psychologist. Global climate change seems urgent, given that it was just announced that November was the 345th straight month with temperatures above the 20th-century average.

Ranney's research focuses on the nature of explanation and understanding in both formal and informal settings. Along with GSE student Lee Nevo Lamprey, undergraduate Kimberly Le, other students (e.g., Myles Crain) and other collaborators (e.g., Lloyd Goldwasser, Rachel Ranney, and Chemistry's Prof. Ronald Cohen, among many others), he has been looking at how much people understand global warming – and with brief explanations of the phenomenon – how that understanding changes.

In their paper, "Changing Global Warming Beliefs with Scientific Information: Knowledge, Attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny Theory)," Ranney and his co-authors – Dav Clark, Daniel Reinholz and Sarah Cohen – surveyed 270 people in San Diego to find out what they knew (or didn't know) about global warming. Not a single person could explain it correctly at even the basic level, he said.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The researchers developed a 400-word explanation – including the 35 words from above – as well as a series of videos (ranging from 52 seconds to 4 minutes and 45 seconds) to explain how global warming works. Within four days after the videos were launched, the videos had more than 35,000 site-views.

Interestingly, for California and Texas undergraduates, who had little to no knowledge of why the Earth's temperature is rising, reading the 400-word explanation increased not only the students' understanding of global warming, but also their acceptance that it's actually occurring. Such effects have since been replicated with other groups (e.g., Clark, Ranney, & Felipe, 2013, with high-school students, etc.), including a more nationally representative sample of adults. Clark and Ranney have also recently found that even a handful of critically germane statistics (e.g., seven of them) can significantly yield attitudes and concerns that are more in keeping with accepted climate science.

To boost the website's reach, the videos are being translated into some ubiquitous non-English languages. Lamprey, Le, and other students, along with Ranney, will also be analyzing the site's "naturalistic" data to better hypothesize about which videos are most informative and satisfying.

Ranney's Reasoning Group also plans to run controlled experiments to more diagnostically determine which of the videos' elements are most effective. (One can't necessarily fully tell which video is more effective for one's self, as one is hardly naïve when viewing a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th video.) Ranney's RTMD theory, which has a good deal of empirical evidence – and inspired the 400-word explanation and the videos – is itself also slated for more experimental assessment.

400-Word Explanation

How does climate change ("global warming") work? The mechanism of the greenhouse effect

[Or: "Why do some gases concern scientists – like carbon dioxide (CO2) – but not others, like oxygen?"]

Scientists tell us that human activities are changing Earth's atmosphere and increasing Earth's average temperature. What causes these climate changes?

First, let's understand Earth's "normal" temperature: When Earth absorbs sunlight, which is mostly visible light, it heats up. Like the sun, Earth emits energy – but because it is cooler than the sun, Earth emits lower-energy infrared wavelengths. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (methane, carbon dioxide, etc.) let visible light pass through, but absorb infrared light – causing the atmosphere to heat up. The warmer atmosphere emits more infrared light, which tends to be re-absorbed – perhaps many times – before the energy eventually returns to space. The extra time this energy hangs around has helped keep Earth warm enough to support life as we know it. (In contrast, the moon has no atmosphere, and it is colder than Earth, on average.)

Since the industrial age began around the year 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 40% and methane has increased by 150%. Such increases cause extra infrared light absorption, further heating Earth above its typical temperature range (even as energy from the sun stays basically the same). In other words, energy that gets to Earth has an even harder time leaving it, causing Earth's average temperature to increase – producing global climate change.

[In molecular detail, greenhouse gases absorb infrared light because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetric distributions of electric charge, which match the energy levels of various infrared wavelengths. In contrast, non-greenhouse gases (such as oxygen and nitrogen – that is, O2 and N2) don't absorb infrared light, because they have symmetric charge distributions even when vibrating.]

Summary: (a) Earth absorbs most of the sunlight it receives; (b) Earth then emits the absorbed light's energy as infrared light; (c) greenhouse gases absorb a lot of the infrared light before it can leave our atmosphere; (d) being absorbed slows the rate at which energy escapes to space; and (e) the slower passage of energy heats up the atmosphere, water, and ground. By increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, humans are increasing the atmosphere's absorption of infrared light, thereby warming Earth and disrupting global climate patterns.

Related Stories

Global warming from greenhouse gases affects rainfall patterns in the world differently than that from solar heating, according to a study by an international team of scientists in the January 31 issue of Nature. Using computer ...

(Phys.org) —In a bit of cosmic irony, planets orbiting cooler stars may be more likely to remain ice-free than planets around hotter stars. This is due to the interaction of a star's light with ice and snow on the planet's ...

Reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface by geoengineering may not undo climate change after all. Two German researchers used a simple energy balance analysis to explain how the Earth's water cycle responds ...

Recommended for you

At the end of the Pleistocene period, approximately 12,800 years ago—give or take a few centuries—a cosmic impact triggered an abrupt cooling episode that earth scientists refer to as the Younger Dryas.

In a new assessment of nine state-of-the-art climate model simulations provided by major international modeling centers, Michael Rawlins at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and colleagues found broad disagreement in ...

New research confirms that the land under the Chesapeake Bay is sinking rapidly and projects that Washington, D.C., could drop by six or more inches in the next century—adding to the problems of sea-level rise.

The world's deserts may be storing some of the climate-changing carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, a new study suggests. Massive aquifers underneath deserts could hold more carbon than all the plants on land, according ...

Wildfires in California's fabled Sierra Nevada mountain range are increasingly burning high-elevation forests, which historically have seldom burned, reports a team of researchers led by the John Muir Institute of the Environment ...

104 comments

Not all incoming light will be uniformly transformed to infrared light, especially if we re-green the earth's surfaces by increasing plant growth and photosynthesis. We have a responsibility to reverse trends like deforestation, desertification and industrial agriculture that turn soils bare and barren, and by taking carbon out of the atmosphere and building it into soil we will be solving multiple problems and restoring living systems.

Sounds like that's how it should work and that's how the models were written, but ALL of them have failed to predict the warming "hiatus" of the past 10 to 17 yrs (depending on whose measurements are used). And some of the most important tenets of GHG theory have never been confirmed because the measurements show NO temp change as required by GHG theory. Therefore, GHG theory as written = fail as confirmed by all the models.

No consideration or even understanding in the GHG theory that the global temperature control is, in part, an autonomic negative feedback system that increases Earths albedo in the tropics when the solar energy input increases ocean water temp beyond a narrow range. In addition, the high albedo clouds transport water vapor to the top of the atmosphere where the heat of evaporation is released and transported into space. This self regulating system limits the ocean temperature to a maximum of 88 - 90°F in spite of any increases in GHG's in the atmosphere.

Climate change seems to be the more accurate term to me. North America has seen some wild weather over the past few years, not to mention the current deep freeze that is going on. Has man played a hand in this change, yes, are we the main culprit, probably not. Mother nature emits enough emissions through forest fires, volcanism, ice melt, permafrost unthawing, etc... Core drilling samples show that typically every 10-12k years there is a major ice age, are we just at the front end of it?

Fantastic Deaty…You've managed to regurgitate several denialist myths there is 2 paras of bollocks.

which is all hand-waving and meaningless except to the converted my friend.Papers concerning or at least references please.What's special that there should be some "auto" control at 88/90F?You do know that GCMs via ensembles can only predict a range of temp. Do have a look eh?Heard of climate cycles? – PDO/ENSO gives around +/-0.2C to/from a Nina & Nino. What have we had since '05?You expect a constant/unvarying trend do you?GHG theory does not require that natural climate cycles stop to suite your interpretation of it.The equation is simple my friend – Climate is balanced by SW absorbed vs LWIR emitted. And that's out of balance. Albedo isn't (it's measured).

People understand this at varying degrees of consciousness. It's really not that they don't. They can't allow themselves to accept it, because that would mean they then have to deal with what they know to be the crazy policies being put forth to combat it. It's a preemptive mechanism about a policy fight.

Change the conversation about policy and you will have a MUCH easier time with people denying the sky is blue and insisting CO2 doesn't trap IR heat...

Oh, ever thought about the wet bits that cover 71% of the planet?If you had, and bothered to look, you would see energy pouring into it. You wont see it in Deg Celsius as 1C in the atm is only 0.00025C in Oceans – go look up volumetric specific heat.

The upper Troposphere is very dry and the Stratosphere exceedingly. And it's not transported to space without first interacting with the rest of the atmosphere.It's in the high/dry atmosphere that CO2 has greatest effect.Go take your D-K brain away and try to conceive how it is that experts in multi-disciplinary fields have arrived at the conclusion they have… And, sorry, it's not because you know more than them. Nor even "Socialists" making a grab for world domination.

And no heat is no comparable via temperature in differing substances ryggy.You need to take into account Mass (water 1000x heavier) and SH ~4x more for water.In other words it needs to be measured in Joules to compare.

The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.

Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610. CO2 is not one of them. http://agwunveile...pot.com/

BTW, what is the mass and heat capacity used when surface temps are reported? Surface temp data is useless for any energy comparison unless you specify the material and mass.

It's precisely what I said.Look, it was you that was comparing heat content with temperature - not me.Not that you twigged.You are at a Uba type obtuseness level here my friend.Basic thermal properties of substances.Joules of energy heat different things to different temps depending on their thermal properties. N'est'pa?There's 1000x more water in the ocean (by mass) than air in the atm. Since the Sun puts it's Joules into both, then a 1C rise in air temps does NOT equate to a 1C rise in water temp (assuming mixing throughout). Rather a temperature ~1/4000th of that.Stick to radical politics ryggy - at least your opinion is as god as mine - in science you're way behind.

The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.

Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610. CO2 is not one of them. http://agwunveile...pot.com/

I think we saw that the first time. Shouting LOUDLY doesn't make your assertion true.I'll be grateful for his peer-reviewed paper.But, put simply, the Sun's magnet field strength and GCR's do not correlate with global temps and they follow a ~11 year cycle, opposite to the sunspot cycle.Also to use "bulk" sea temperature from 1700 as a means of scientific analysis is absurd.And smacks of someone wanting to prove his theory correct rather than consideration of proper scientific causes of error. Where are his uncertainties. Estimates of possible error?

Such a discovery nullifies any model that does not accurately account for this connection and it's ramifications. That includes every AGWite model and otherwise, any discussion thereof is merely mental masturbation, something that is quite prevalent around here..

Cold is MUCH better:""Fuel and glycol supplies are frozen – at ORD [Chicago O'Hare International Airport] and other airports in the Midwest and Northeast. Additionally, our employees are only able to be out on the ramp for a few minutes at a time because wind chills are as low as 45 below zero at some airports," Powell said."http://newyork.cb...irports/

Quite shocking at the level of undereducation regarding the Greenhouse Effect, but then there are powerful forces trying to ensure that potential voters won't know too many uncomfortable facts about the reality and realise how they have been systematically misled.

Now work out how many Greenland ice sheets can be completely melted by the energy contained in 'just' 0.1°C of ocean warming...

Now work out how many Greenland ice sheets can be completely melted by the energy contained in 'just' 0.1°C of ocean warming...

The ocean does not warm uniformly. The top warms much faster than middle and lower levels of the watter, so when you talk about 0.1C of ocean warming it is misleading.

Ice is an objective measure of total global heat budget, however, the fact that CO2 goes up every year, while the total ice does not always go down is by itself evidence that CO2 alone can't be the biggest variable involved. If it were, melting would always get worse. After all, we've long ago passed what was supposedly the pre-industrial levels, so if CO2 was all that bad, the forcing should always be net positive, and should always be larger than the previous year. Yet last year's rebound year proves the forcing is not always net positive. I don't recall there being any volcanoes large enough to explain the rebound last year.

There is much left unexplained.

Zephir_fan

Oh yeah, and before it gets misconstrued, the Northern Hemisphere had a net gain in total ice budge last year, as the gains in sea ice were much larger than the losses in continental ice. While that's the first year since 2008 to have a net gain, it still something.

While I agree the sea ice trend has been exponentially downward, what bothers me about immediately taking the full bait on CO2 is the ice trend really is not doing what it should do if we were already in an excess of CO2.

Remember, Correlation =/= causation.

If you see certain portions of a sine curve in a data set it can look very much like an exponential or quadratic curve, at least until you hit the next inflection point, which we may or may not hit. Maybe there is one, maybe there isn't.

Prior to last year, I had thought 2013 was going to be a hot year, personal musings based on apparent patterns, and yet it turned out to be the coldest year in decades.

The science disagrees with you returners. The Climate system has cycles, in which stored heat is moved around spacially/temporally. This is akin to the water in boiling pan churning around whilst being heated to 100C. Now given known conditions that water will ALWAYS reach 100C in the same time with the same energy put into it. What skeptics think is that somehow the water in the pan can alter the rate at which it takes to reach 100C. It just cant. If the energy is put in then it has effects and comes out. It is just a simple thermodynamic process in the end. The energy can't be magicked away or gained from anywhere but the Sun (ultimately). HOWEVER – this is true only if we cannot see oceans cooling, as heat would be transferring from water to air. We don't. On the contrary oceans at all levels are (on ave) warming (best current est 0.06C - see below posts for the Joules that takes) That heat can only come from the Sun. Therein is AGW.

Cold is MUCH better:""Fuel and glycol supplies are frozen – at ORD [Chicago O'Hare International Airport] and other airports in the Midwest and Northeast. Additionally, our employees are only able to be out on the ramp for a few minutes at a time because wind chills are as low as 45 below zero at some airports," Powell said."http://newyork.cb...irports/

The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to the deniers of natural climate change.

When the data can't support the faith, fire the propagandists:"It is unclear exactly why many climate change organizations are installing new executives, but it appears they are following the professional sports paradigm: When a team loses more than it wins, you can't fire all the players, but you can fire the coach. "http://www.breitb...adership

Why must there be so many climate change groups pushing propaganda if the 'science is sound'?And AGWites claim there is no money in AGWism.

When they are sick, people go to professionals - doctors and surgeons. (Almost all of them will - but some religious nuts will pray instead!). When talking about Earth's heat balance, we should heed the words of specialists in thermodynamics. Apparently, too many people are having a delusional trust of their feeble mental powers!

Who are these specialists?Which ones do you heed? The ones you agree with?Why would NASA and NPL want calibrated radiometers on orbit, CLARREO and TRUTHS, if those specialists knew it all?

I would trust those that are not in administrative positions that are reigned in by politics, those that actually practice, measure, and present their views clearly with measurements and scientific laws behind the findings.

If it's as simple as same-energy-in / less-energy-out, it should be easy to verify by satellite measurements. I think that experiment has been done. Where are the results? Silly little videos be damned.

It is one thing to know how signals are passed between neurons via axons, dentrites, and through synapses, ....it can even be modeled on a computer, ... but it is quite another to then predict which way a polar bear will lean when it takes a dump.

Who are these specialists?Which ones do you heed? The ones you agree with?Why would NASA and NPL want calibrated radiometers on orbit, CLARREO and TRUTHS, if those specialists knew it all?

Like I keep saying to you ryggy - there's no mitigating against shit happening - and to go with the ones YOU choose, because there are mistakes made on the "other" side throws the baby out with the bathwater.Balance of probability rules that we go with the majority of the people who know best. It's just common sense - which you throw out with the bathwater too.

In this spirit of fairness I now point out to you/everyone that all these longstanding astronomical (solar) and geological (planetary) processes/factors causing climate/weather cycles and atmospheric/ocean currents/convections (transporting heat around/away from the planet) have already been allowed for.

It is ADDITIONAL unusual factors/processes that humans have introduced into the dynamics that are being scrutinized/modeled specifically. OK?

In any case, if you've ever simmered/boiled an egg in a wide and deep pot you must know that the more/faster heating in one region then the more quickly/violently it's distributed from hotter to cooler. The greater the energy content/gradient between hot-cold regions (poles and tropics, deep oceans and surface waters, mountains and lowlands) means 'old cycles' of currents/convection increasingly extreme/frequent/widespread. That's all. :)

Oh, and for those who don't realize the complexity of the transition period, the change will manifest via 'steps and spikes' as result of PHASE CHANGE and COLD MASS 'regions/reservoirs' absorbing some of the additional hear energy until a critical point is reached and the next 'step' is started. Consider: Gas hydrates in deep oceans and permafrost and cold masses (mountain ranges and polar etc ice sheets/glaciers) absorb heat, so temporarily/periodically ameliorating global warming effects into 'steps' (which still trend upwards overall). Methane and COS hydrates absorb energy and gasify, while cold masses absorb heat energy but still seem cold (but not as cold as before). Much heat has gone into melting ice, so temporarily varying ocean/air circulation/warming. All these thing complicate and make non-linear the overall warming process/distribution/events/cycles etc. Those arguing (for/against) from simplistic notions/views misses the real/big picture.

Balance of probability rules that we go with the majority of the people who know best. It's just common sense

Then you supported eugenics when the majority of people "knew best". Murdering and aborting the degenerate is just common sense, right?

Common sense comes in applying my own standards and sensibilities, as well as in using the knowledge of people who know more than I can about something to inform my judgement. Should those things apply then the balance of probability is ALL we can put our faith in.Always bearing in mind that it is not infallible and shit happens despite our best efforts. Error/disaster can only be mitigated and NOT avoided.

ryggy - What comes across in your posts is your seeming need to be in control. And extreme distrust of others Are you a control freak?A sociopath?

Are we still having trouble coming up with an argument against the thermometers?

If your article shows no warming, then the following linkhttp://www.noaane...ats.htmldirectly refutes it.And I would trust NOAAwoodfortrees is

C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analysing data

hardly a SCIENTIST.you really should have read the warning on the main page

Beware sharp toolsHowever, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others

I welcome constructive suggestions of new algorithms or datasets I could add, and in particular help from experts if I've got any of the maths badly wrong (which is quite possible)

therefore you MAY or MAY NOT have valid mathematical data posted.

Also

Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you

just something worth mentioning: if it came down to it, I would trust peer reviewed science posted publicly (not a pseudo science site or conspiracy site) over a site which allows any user to generate cherry picked data for posting elsewhere

Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you

I would suggest you not rely on anyone else to do your thinking for you, either.

just something worth mentioning: if it came down to it, I would trust peer reviewed science posted publicly (not a pseudo science site or conspiracy site) over a site which allows any user to generate cherry picked data for posting elsewhere

And this is why you've foolishly bought into AGW. Like I said above, try thinking for yourself.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date

ok, so, in the past THREE years the data shows that there is a continual rise.Now... I only went three years because it pretty much supported my argument.and again, NOAA trumps woodfortrees.Roll another blunt and blame the conspiracy, I guess

I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

you also believe in conspiracy, apparently.

I believe in SCIENCEI might not know a lot right now, BUT at least I try to learn.

and publishes his own WARNINGS on the page, which I took DIRECTLY from them!

Presumptuous

nope. Just used his own words.

I would suggest you not rely on anyone else to do your thinking for you, either

no one thinks for me, but when a snot-load of trained professionals agree on something, I tend to consider that a much better source of information than a pseudo-science mouthpiece at a public siteconsidering that I can at least SEE their science, know that they are trained, and verify that it is peer reviewed, it means that it is valid. And not manipulation of SOURCE CODE.Call it what you will.therefore NOAA and SCIENCE trumps UBA

All you're saying is you let these "snot-load of trained professionals" do the thinking for you

nopethe argument is about trustworthy dataand NOAA trumps UBA every time

then I used real data from YOUR OWN LINK and found that YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING data, which YOUR OWN LINK's HOMEPAGE told you to be careful of! next time you should READ the ENTIRE PAGE you use to link! I DID!

I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

it's right THERE (previous post)... from YOUR OWN LINKyou really SHOULD have read the entire page, uba.READ IT AND WEEP

All you're saying is you let these "snot-load of trained professionals" do the thinking for you

nopethe argument is about trustworthy dataand NOAA trumps UBA every time

Again, feel free to falsify the data.

then I used real data from YOUR OWN LINK and found that YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING data, which YOUR OWN LINK's HOMEPAGE told you to be careful of! next time you should READ the ENTIRE PAGE you use to link! I DID!

How's it cherry picking, if it's the most current data available?

I'll believe raw data over an opinion, every time

it's right THERE (previous post)... from YOUR OWN LINKyou really SHOULD have read the entire page, uba.READ IT AND WEEP

I've read the entire site, and the sites the data comes from. It's good data. Simply not liking it, seems to be your problem.

@Ubamy argument has ALWAYS been that Global warming existsso when you say

all you're doing is masking the trend you don't like with larger data sets. It changes nothing.

after i prove that it DOES exist...it only shows that it is YOU who is cherry-pickingit also shows that it is YOU who has their head in the sandit also shows that it is YOU who is arguing and defending a false argument, from the start, knowing full well that YOUR data set is selected to reinforce YOUR argument

therefore it is YOU who starts the argument from a false premiseand cannot defend your argument

IOW- i said global warming existsyou said it didnti proved it didyou are still arguing from cherry picked data and hiding from reality

you used a small data set to prove that you were rightor rather to "attempt to prove" that global warming does NOT exist

and i used your site to prove it DOESi know that weather and climate are complex, and can show various trends over short periods of time that can confuse and dont always show the overall picture, so i used the OVERALL DATA to show the OVERALL PICTURE

no short term datai wanted to prove the BIG PICTUREwhich isGLOBAL WARMING EXISTS

and so i didand so you hide from that factand attempt to go back to your CHERRY PICKED set

guess you really didnt look at the linksI proved that there is a global warming trendbut why bother with details like facts when you have your faith, uba,isnt that what this is really about?YepYOU BELIEVE that it is stoppedYOU pick data that YOU believe supports your hypothesisYOU think that ends the conversationbut YOU are wrongthe overall picture is NOT changed

Or would it be more accurate to state; "There's been some warming, but currently warming has stalled."

And do you really think repeating your mantra over and over again somehow changes the facts

you are the one repeating a mantraI provided proofI even used YOUR link to prove what I saidbut YOU wont let FACTS and PROOF get in YOUR WAYit is YOU who is repeating a MANTRAI stand by my argumentYOU can go back and re-read it.

Why?

why what? about the overall picture? or you arguing semantics and whatnot?define which and i will answer

@captain stumpey...I seriously doubt that you could define the difference between your (expletive deleted) and your mouth yet alone anything ti do with the real world.

and i doubt you ever saw a dictionary and dont know how to use spell check built into the site either (not using punctuation i can understand...)and i bet you are probably no more than a sock-puppet TROLL with bad grammar

if you used your brain rather than let the anti's think FOR you, you would see where my argument is logical, uses Uba's OWN LINK to supply the data which supports my argument, and uses NOAA to verify it, therefore it speaks volumes about its validity

guess yall dont like it when your own links are used against you... i can see whyas it tears your argument to shreds

i stand by my assessment and original argumentGlobal Warming existsthere is no definitive proof that it is stopped

@captain stumpey...I seriously doubt that you could define the difference between your a$$hole and your mouth yet alone anything ti do with the real world.

You're on the 'retard' side on this one, VENDitardE. Cut uba loose and so cut your losses before you disappear up uba's nonsensical backside where his 'arguments' are formulated out of his own personal 'shite' colored, shape and rightwing/idiot- biased by whatever denialist/profiteering propaganda he has swallowed that makes him so dangerous to global warming because of all the hot air and methane his half-digested propaganda/agenda generates. I suggest you leave this one alone and concentrate on issues you do have some hope of being right on. Cheers....and in future, be more discriminating in what/whom you 'support'. Cheers! :)

It has been shown repeatedly that temperature has continued to rise non stop, and that the cherry-picked data some morons use to try and show otherwise is inaccurate, fails to take into account all areas of the globe, especially those areas that are showing the greatest degree of warming, and speaks only to a single aspect of the global climate system.

That some morons continue to repeatedly post the same mantra speaks more to their denialism and lack of scientific understanding than anything to do with climate. It is simply a version of the game whack-a-mole. There are some morons who think that posting the same thing over and over will somehow give it credence, as if it will be less wrong if it is posted multiple times than it was when it was posted once.

Zombie arguments are a manifestation of the same thing. Some morons will continually point to arguments that have been previously discredited as if stating them multiple times will somehow make them more credible.

the last 16 years is irrelevant to MY argument... that there IS warmingthat there is an upward trendthat it is PROVENyou are attempting to switch arguments, but I will continue to argue from my same points, which is, if you remember(paraphrased) you said global warming doesnt exist, and I said it DOES "global warmingn.An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

I showed where there WAS an increase, you used cherry picked data to show there wasntwhich still included fluctuations

doesnt matter WHERE you go from therethe argument that I made still stands

Why are you so desperate to bury the last 12 -16 years? As already explained, hiding the current trend in overwhelming data, does nothing to change the current trend

I did not bury it, I included it in my graphcherry picking a section of the graph is meaningless to my argumentdo I really need to re-state it?

You are becoming fanatical, you know

Why are you so worried about the overall picture?

this was the basis of my argumentthat overall, there is global warming (or climate change)there is proof that it is being exacerbated by humansthis is NOT a totally natural increase in temperatureWHICH IS MY ARGUMENT

it is YOU who keeps trying to change it to whatever you wish to see...I will be doggedly persistent in reminding you of that, BTW

Uba – beginnings continuedTHEN I showed where, on YOUR site, it cautions against cherry picking and tells you that the site MAY have math issuesin which you argued

If you feel there's an error, graph it yourself to prove it is wrong. It's easy enough to verify.

and so I didusing YOUR site and graphing system that YOU linkedand I proved that there was global warmingand I correlated it with NOAA

so, in conclusion, you now argue that your original intent was that global warming STOPPED but …this does NOT change MY argumentthat it existedthat it is realthat there are correlations with humans that point to anthropomorphic influencesand that the SCIENCE is real

should I continue, or do YOU finally get the point?one vote all you want... the truth is there in black and white

using YOUR logic & site (based on your posts), then during the 1940-1950's-global warming stopped/droppedand during '60-'68 it droppedand '70-'76 it droppedand in around '82... well, you get the point, I hope

therefore, according to your logic, the global mean should be at or below the pre-industrial temperature levelsso... why aren't they?Maybe because there has been a continual upward trend over the long term that shows, even in times of precieved stopping/dropping, there was still an overall rise? The big picture...

When sunspot activity goes down and we don't get many CMEs to charge the ionosphere, the climate tends to destabilize. At least it did that last recorded time (http://www.dailym...ge.html) The sun is involved in climate much more then we tend to think.

When sunspot activity goes down and we don't get many CMEs to charge the ionosphere, the climate tends to destabilize. At least it did that last recorded time (http://www.dailym...ge.html) The sun is involved in climate much more then we tend to think.

AGWites can't control the sun so it must be rejected as having anything to do with 'climate change'.

Sounds like that's how it should work and that's how the models were written, but ALL of them have failed to predict the warming "hiatus"

IMO it's sensible to consider, this mechanism can apply, it's even sensible to force the fossil fuels replacement, because with increasing price of oil we would face the instability at the geopolitical level (which is IMO even greater problem, than the global warming itself). But the high cost of "sustainable" sources of energy indicates, we are just replacing the energy consumption with energy consumption required for building of wind and solar plants, so this solution just robs Peter to pay Paul.

If the AGW movement would promote the protection of environment and the research of effective sources of energy (like the cold fusion), it would be great. But IMO it failed in this role, because it just represents the fight of green lobby against fossil fuel lobby. The AGW people just seek how to drain money from the rest, not about actual savings.

The unsustainability of "green" solutions are quite evident, the people involved just refuse to see it. That is to say, every of AGW proponents twaddles about science, but he is not able to do any simple economical calculation. If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the WWF for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities. This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. Everyone of you can judge, if this plan is realistic, not to say about its impact for the life environment. These plans are considered seriously only because they do provide the jobs for people involved.

controlling the sun by seeding the atmosphere with dust to block the sun

This dust will induce the droughts, as it would prohibit the condensation of water into larger droplets capable to precipitate. It would be an essentially just another smog generators. The China which produces most of such smog suffers with droughts in largest extent. In addition, there are another, not just apparent consequences of geoengineering. These plans are welcomed just by some lobbyist groups, who are expecting to collect huge money from the rest of human society for their realization. Whole the capitalism is just about strategy, how to suck the money from the rest, nothing else.

What can we think about biofuels? We are ruining the rainforests for it and at the moment, when the minerals will be drained from soil, the soil will change into desert. The sustainable agriculture would require huge amount of fertilizers, which we haven't.

So far the USA managed to keep the price of oil low with military interventions. It's the main reason, why the cost of oil was so low in USA with compare to the rest of world. But this neocolonial strategy isn't working anymore, because the oil reserves are so depleted, that every oil war (which consumes lotta oil for military) increases the oil price instead, which induces another fossil fuel and subsequent economical crisis (the Vietnam war in 1975, the Kuwait and Iraq war and so on). So that the only solution of energetic crisis is the nuclear fission (which is not sustainable anyway and the consequences of which are still waiting to happen) - or the research of cold fusion. The only other option is the desperate fight of everyone with everybody for the rest of oil sources, which will not take long time, as everyone of you can imagine.

B.S.. Virtually every current global data set shows temperatures have fallen off for at least the last 12 years

Holey Underwear, Tuba!just like the drop in 1940's till about 1950-something, Right?Or the drop in the 60's then right?Or that drop... this is getting repetitious...I guess you didnt read the whole chart or verify all those other drops that I talked about..Wow... but overall they still show an increase from 1950-presentisnt THAT something? I wonder if yall anti's used that same tired argument then?Probably...

this is how ANTI-propaganda works.cherry pick a few years that supports a trend, then hope no one notices that they were wrong

Using the present tense "IS" and then ignoring the current data is dishonest

I could flip this argument right back at you...culling the data from ONLY the past 16 years and saying it is over is dishonest.Especially given that I have shown that, even with all the previous drops or periods that YOU would say are trends of slow/low/stopped inactivity, it has still risen to the current levels. In fact, had you and I been having this argument around 1950, you would be saying "yeah, but look at the last ten years of dropping temps" and I would be saying, yeah, but overall..."and we see where THAT went, dont we? Yup!Higher and higher!

Saying it "DOES" and then hiding the current data to support this claim is dishonest

see above

you are the one ignoring/hiding data, not i

this is just how the propaganda machine worksshow them ONLY what supports the liesay that everyone else is ignoring/hiding the data

lets try this again, shall we?IF you and I were making this argument during 1950OR during the mid '60'sOR around '78YOU would be making the EXACT same argumentglobal warming is over based upon a trend:look at the past (culled data) yearsyou would use the LARGEST time frame showing the LEAST amount of activity, or the largest drop in activity,and yet, looking from our CURRENT perspective, you can see the misconception of the argument.Just because it stops/drops and you perceive a short term trend, doesnt mean the overall trend is finished.From those dates, there has been a considerable jump up in temps globallytherefore, it is YOUR culled data that is illogical and holds no water, as, in the overall scheme, I can also cherry pick data and say"Yes, it stopped and dropped in THESE years too!"BUT that still doesnt change that the overall trend rises, not stops

you argue that it stoppedi argue that it is notthe overall pic shows that i have a great deal of data to support meas trends have shown dropping/stalling in the pasti showed a trend of a decade that dropped, then contd risingyou still argue that it is stoppedyou got 16 yearsmy data includes your data

your "arguing a different argument" is YOUNOT memy argument is and will be the sameand i used your data/site to prove it

" Some years ago in a critical essay on Diamond's book Collapse, anthropologist Joseph Tainter wrote: "Jared Diamond is a man with a message. Collapse was meant to tell how anthropogenic environmental degradation doomed past societies and, on a grander scale, will undermine us if we don't change."

There may well be something to this larger message, but it appears we will no longer find it expressed in the history of Easter Island."http://blogs.disc...kNbROlLN

I can't believe I haven't weighed in on a single point in this whole thread! All you guys must be doing a good job!Actually I'm only doing it now cuz it makes me the 100th caller and I thought I heard you could win a prize....